Dissident Voice

April
2, 2003

While
a strong majority of the U.S. public is rallying behind President George W.
Bush's invasion of Iraq, they also support the United Nations Security Council
and back multilateral diplomacy rather than unilateral U.S. action, according
to a major poll released in Washington, DC on Monday, March 31. The poll,
conducted during the first five days of the war by the University of Maryland's
Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), found that the current high
levels of support for the war--between 70 and 75% in most polls--might be due
more to a rallying effect than to real conviction on the public's part.

It
also suggested that right-wing arguments that the Security Council has made
itself irrelevant by failing to comply with U.S. demands for a war resolution
have not significantly influenced the public's views. Majorities--sometimes
quite significant--said they preferred the United Nations to take leading roles
in international security rather than the United States.

While
PIPA found 75% of the public rallying behind the war, almost one third said
they disagreed with Bush's decision to ignore the Security Council, leaving a
slight majority of only 54% of respondents in support. Twenty-three percent
flatly opposed both the decisions to ignore the Security Council and to go to
war, while 21% said they agreed with the statement, "I do not agree with
the decision (to ignore the Security Council), but I still support the
president."

The
question then is how long those who are now rallying behind the war will
support it. "Support for the war may not be quite as strong as it
looks," said Steven Kull, PIPA's director and a veteran expert on U.S.
public attitudes toward international affairs. Nor does a majority of the
public consider Bush's choice to go to war without the Security Council's
approval a precedent that should be repeated, as many neoconservative and
right-wing hawks have urged since Bush decided to withdraw a U.S.-British draft
resolution authorizing war earlier this month.

Asked
whether the UN's importance in global affairs will be diminished by the U.S.
decision, 71% of respondents said the body will be at least as or more
important than it was before the war. Only one in four respondents said it
should be less so, roughly the same percentage of the U.S. public that has
opposed multilateral commitments Washington over the past 25 years.

Moreover,
asked whether in the future U.S. leaders should or should not feel freer to use
military force without UN approval, only 29% said that it should, while two out
of every three respondents said it should not. A strong majority of
respondents--75%--also rejected calls by some hawks, particularly in Congress,
to punish those countries that opposed the U.S. position in the Security
Council.

More
broadly, respondents said they continue to support a strong UN role in areas
considered central to U.S. security interests. Asked for example, who should be
put in charge of governing Iraq until a new Iraqi government was established,
52% chose the United Nations, while only 30% took the administration's view
that U.S. officials should run the country. The remainder either offered no
opinion or a third option, usually "the Iraqi people."

Strong
support was also found for the idea that the United Nations is the forum best
suited to deal with possible confrontations with the other two members of
Bush's "axis of evil," Iran and North Korea. Asked which would better
"ensure that Iran does not make nuclear weapons and support Palestinian
groups that use terrorism," 63% chose the United Nations, and only 32%
opted for Washington. Likewise with North Korea's nuclear weapons: 72% said the
world body was best suited to take the lead, while only 26% chose the United
States.

The
notion that Bush is currently enjoying a "rallying effect" that could
diminish over time was not only uncovered in the PIPA poll. A survey released
last week by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that
while 72% of respondents thought the decision to use military force against
Iraq was correct, only 50% agreed that was "the best thing for the U.S. to
do."

Even
the 54% in the PIPA poll who said they supported the decision to go to war may
be overstated, said Kull, who noted that the percentage of the public who
supported going to war before U.S.-led forces launched the conflict ranged from
33-43%. "Some of this jump to 54% may be a genuine attitude change,"
Kull said, "but in a wartime environment there is a general tendency to
suppress disagreement with the president."

The
notion that public support is not as strong as the gross figures indicate is
bolstered by the sense among respondents that the war's consequences may be far
more negative than positive. For example, only 14% agreed with administration
officials who have suggested that the war could decrease the likelihood that
North Korea will produce nuclear weapons; that rose to a mere 24% with respect
to Iran.

Pluralities
also predicted that Washington's relations with the rest of the world would
suffer. Only 15% assumed it will be easier "for the U.S. to get
cooperation from other countries on important international issues in
general," while 37% said it would be harder. Most of the rest predicted no
change or had no opinion.

Presented
with the neoconservative view that U.S. relations in the Muslim world will
improve after a convincing victory over Baghdad because it would inspire
respect for Washington, only 12% of respondents agreed. Forty-eight percent
said they would be worse. A majority of 51% said the war will increase the risk
of terrorist attacks against the United States, while only 21% assumed they
would be lower.